"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." http://www.quotegarden.com/government.html
I'd have to see them, but I doubt it. LCDs are easier to read from for long periods of time than CRTs, but they still don't rival actual printed material. Unless it comes off of my old printer (HP 550C)
Yes, but I'll spend 20 minutes on slashdot, go do something else (for example, play my cello (as I just did), go to class, do homework, etc.) and come back later. When I read a book I sit down for a couple hours and read straight through. I've yet to see a computer monitor I can read from for that length of time without a good amount of breaks. The closest I've seen are good LCDs.
Gates may not be the nicest guy around when it comes to business practices, but he's not stupid. You don't found a company that grows to MS's size without a hefty bit of wit (not to mention a truckload of luck). He wouldn't be stupid enough to do that.
Two things: first, I don't think that it would have the same effect. Currently I read the clause as a kind of 'morality enforcer' that says "if you do something I don't like - even if it doesn't involve me or my software - you can't use my software" with the think you don't like being enforcing software patents against OSS software.
Example: -Company A has the patent to MP3s -Company A uses Person B's code (licensed with this patent clause) in a program that displays images (completely unrelated to MP3s) -Person C writes a MP3 player and licenses it with the patent clause -Company A can't sue Person C without losing the right to use Person B's code, even though Person A and his/her program is completely unrelated to Person C and his/her program and the MP3 patent.
Second point: regarding where you mention "the "mutual termination" clause may either be invalid by itself or make the entire license invalid", you might be able to write a clause in the license that says "if any part of this license is found to be unenforcable, the rest stands". I've heard someone mention that congress writes similar clauses into it's laws (regarding being declared unconstitutional) but have no clue otherwise if this is true or not.
>>Mutual termination ensures that if anyone asserts patent royalties then everyone loses all rights to the software. This way, none of the users have the right to use the software any more (in the Copyright sense), and so since they can't be using it, they cannot be forced to pay royalties. This keeps the patent owners honest - they can't hijack OSS to further non-OSS goals.
That's not what the license says. In addition to the point Dwonis points out (that the rights only end for the suing party rather than everyone), in what you give the patent and software in question are directly related. I read this clause as saying if you sue someone - anyone - over a patent infringement by software licensed under with this clause, you lost the ability to redistribute this software, which may have absolutely nothing to do with the dispuited patent.
Even if he is stupid (trying to avoid a political debate), that doesn't change the fact that he's officially in charge. If he orders someone in the military to do something and they don't obey, some would consider it treason. But I agree that being officially in charge doesn't mean you're practically in charge, but military actions will be officially ordered by Bush.
From my reading of the article, this'll be pretty much a replacement for the login passwords. So you don't have a valid print, you can't use keyboard shortcuts.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be difficult to do what you say. On the other hand, it would be almost no more difficult than it is now. Way too many people here are saying "it will allow DoS attacks!" Well, my point is IT DOESN'T (at least to the point of affecting other users). They will be no more allowed now than they were before. They may even be harder to prosecute. But they still aren't allowed.
Even if this is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), the point my first parent was trying to make is that people other than the one the **AA is going after would be affected. Regardless of what you call a DoS attack, affecting other users is forbidden by sec 514, paragraph b 1 B of the bill.
The bill. I read it when the link was posted with an earlier/. story. I didn't post the link with my previous post as I didn't feel like hunting for it and if I use HTML I always forget to add paragraph tags and so everything runs together. Anyway, the relevant section to this discussion is section 514, paragraph b) 1) B) (I don't know the official legal notation for this).
At the time when NS was bought up, I would have taken IE for $0 over NS for $0. (Before then, and recently I've taken a $0 NS over IE for the most part.)
But *why* they were almost bankrupt is immaterial; the point is that they were. I'd say the chance they'd still be around today had AOL not eatten them would be slim to none. Thus we likely have AOL-TW to thank for their continued existance.
Attacks that affect other users - such as DoS attacks - ARE EXPLICITLY DISALLOWED. I'm against this bill, but people here are being just as stupid as the RIAA - if not stupider, because what the bill allows and not is set out in black and white - because they haven't investigated the matter.
I hate to make a political comment, as political discussions tend to get ugly, but with all the ignoring of the UN Bush has been doing (saying we'll attack Iraq with or without the UN's blessing), I don't think that he would be too Loathe to ignore that.
You can't copyright an action, a method of acting, or anything similar. You can only copyright a tangable work, such as a piece of music, a movie, a book, whatever.
On the other hand, you *can* patent the method of not posting, though there's more prior art than you can shake a stick at, so it may not get through the USPTO.
Slashdot Mirror
What's that W. Churchill quote? :Googles:
l
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time."
http://www.quotegarden.com/government.htm
Except Palladium fixes the tear in the painting with duct tape. If mostly fixes the problem, but creates numerous others.
>>He must have a hell of a broadband connection.....
Not to mention be reading another bill seeing as the one in question only allows copying for personal use.
Why aren't geologists "real scientists"? And what's wrong with "much more"?
I'd have to see them, but I doubt it. LCDs are easier to read from for long periods of time than CRTs, but they still don't rival actual printed material. Unless it comes off of my old printer (HP 550C)
Yes, but I'll spend 20 minutes on slashdot, go do something else (for example, play my cello (as I just did), go to class, do homework, etc.) and come back later. When I read a book I sit down for a couple hours and read straight through. I've yet to see a computer monitor I can read from for that length of time without a good amount of breaks. The closest I've seen are good LCDs.
I don't know about you, I but I wouldn't read a book on a computer screen.
I don't think it would stand either.
ROTFL! This could be the best solution proposed so far.
Gates may not be the nicest guy around when it comes to business practices, but he's not stupid. You don't found a company that grows to MS's size without a hefty bit of wit (not to mention a truckload of luck). He wouldn't be stupid enough to do that.
Two things: first, I don't think that it would have the same effect. Currently I read the clause as a kind of 'morality enforcer' that says "if you do something I don't like - even if it doesn't involve me or my software - you can't use my software" with the think you don't like being enforcing software patents against OSS software.
Example:
-Company A has the patent to MP3s
-Company A uses Person B's code (licensed with this patent clause) in a program that displays images (completely unrelated to MP3s)
-Person C writes a MP3 player and licenses it with the patent clause
-Company A can't sue Person C without losing the right to use Person B's code, even though Person A and his/her program is completely unrelated to Person C and his/her program and the MP3 patent.
Second point: regarding where you mention "the "mutual termination" clause may either be invalid by itself or make the entire license invalid", you might be able to write a clause in the license that says "if any part of this license is found to be unenforcable, the rest stands". I've heard someone mention that congress writes similar clauses into it's laws (regarding being declared unconstitutional) but have no clue otherwise if this is true or not.
>>Mutual termination ensures that if anyone asserts patent royalties then everyone loses all rights to the software. This way, none of the users have the right to use the software any more (in the Copyright sense), and so since they can't be using it, they cannot be forced to pay royalties. This keeps the patent owners honest - they can't hijack OSS to further non-OSS goals.
That's not what the license says. In addition to the point Dwonis points out (that the rights only end for the suing party rather than everyone), in what you give the patent and software in question are directly related. I read this clause as saying if you sue someone - anyone - over a patent infringement by software licensed under with this clause, you lost the ability to redistribute this software, which may have absolutely nothing to do with the dispuited patent.
Even if he is stupid (trying to avoid a political debate), that doesn't change the fact that he's officially in charge. If he orders someone in the military to do something and they don't obey, some would consider it treason. But I agree that being officially in charge doesn't mean you're practically in charge, but military actions will be officially ordered by Bush.
From my reading of the article, this'll be pretty much a replacement for the login passwords. So you don't have a valid print, you can't use keyboard shortcuts.
Then you wouldn't be autheticated and wouldn't be able to log on.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be difficult to do what you say. On the other hand, it would be almost no more difficult than it is now. Way too many people here are saying "it will allow DoS attacks!" Well, my point is IT DOESN'T (at least to the point of affecting other users). They will be no more allowed now than they were before. They may even be harder to prosecute. But they still aren't allowed.
Even if this is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), the point my first parent was trying to make is that people other than the one the **AA is going after would be affected. Regardless of what you call a DoS attack, affecting other users is forbidden by sec 514, paragraph b 1 B of the bill.
The bill. I read it when the link was posted with an earlier /. story. I didn't post the link with my previous post as I didn't feel like hunting for it and if I use HTML I always forget to add paragraph tags and so everything runs together. Anyway, the relevant section to this discussion is section 514, paragraph b) 1) B) (I don't know the official legal notation for this).
At the time when NS was bought up, I would have taken IE for $0 over NS for $0. (Before then, and recently I've taken a $0 NS over IE for the most part.)
But *why* they were almost bankrupt is immaterial; the point is that they were. I'd say the chance they'd still be around today had AOL not eatten them would be slim to none. Thus we likely have AOL-TW to thank for their continued existance.
RTFB! (Same as RTFA, but with "bill" in there.)
Attacks that affect other users - such as DoS attacks - ARE EXPLICITLY DISALLOWED. I'm against this bill, but people here are being just as stupid as the RIAA - if not stupider, because what the bill allows and not is set out in black and white - because they haven't investigated the matter.
Or would they even be around today? Netscape was doing poorly to say the least when it was bought by AOL.
I hate to make a political comment, as political discussions tend to get ugly, but with all the ignoring of the UN Bush has been doing (saying we'll attack Iraq with or without the UN's blessing), I don't think that he would be too Loathe to ignore that.
"Imagine if Christopher Columbus had returned from the New World, and no one had returned in his footsteps."
-Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell in Apollo 13
You forgot to make quote marks with your fingers.
You can't copyright an action, a method of acting, or anything similar. You can only copyright a tangable work, such as a piece of music, a movie, a book, whatever.
On the other hand, you *can* patent the method of not posting, though there's more prior art than you can shake a stick at, so it may not get through the USPTO.